General / Off-Topic World refugee crisis

[Mephane]

It might.

But what will be the effects on Syria and the rest of the ME?

It's fine taking the best from these countries, but these countries need their bests.

German politics has been egocentric like that for a long, long time (I doubt there was ever a time in history where it wasn't). The rest of the world could burn as long as Germany is doing fine, that is how most politicians here think and operate. For example, a big thing here is how Germany's exports are far in excess of its imports. That this is only possible when other countries import more than they export, ultimately leading to increased debts or otherwise money drain in those countries, is irrelevant, as long as the numbers for Germany look good. A long-held boast among German politicians and economists is "Exportweltmeister" = "world champion at exporting goods". I kid you not.

Some comments in the news even suspect this to be the prelude to a power struggle within the goverment.

About time for Mutti to put a foot down (I think that's the expression).

I'll believe it when I see it. Merkel's strategy so far has always been that of a detached absolutist monarch: avoid expressing potentially controversial opinion (let the underlings do that), never do the dirty work or even appear associated with it (let the underlings do that), anything failure is only someone else' failure (let the underlings carry all the blame).

Heck, it's perceived a unintentional joke here when Merkel exclaims that she has "vollstes Vertrauen" (="absolute trust") in a particular person currently involved in some controversial or even scandalous matter. Soon after the person is usually dismissed, resigns from their post and sometimes even the public in general, as if she meant those words in a sarcastic manner. Heck, she very well may have, but never gives even the slightest hint in tone, body language etc. that this may be the case; but Merkel is a very, very good actor and a master at hiding her true feelings and opinions - don't ever be fooled by when she appears to be nice, caring or gentle, she has the cold-hearted calculating mind of a psychopath (my opinion, not a medical diagnosis).

 

[Surfinjo]

German politics has been egocentric like that for a long, long time (I doubt there was ever a time in history where it wasn't). The rest of the world could burn as long as Germany is doing fine, that is how most politicians here think and operate. For example, a big thing here is how Germany's exports are far in excess of its imports. That this is only possible when other countries import more than they export, ultimately leading to increased debts or otherwise money drain in those countries, is irrelevant, as long as the numbers for Germany look good. A long-held boast among German politicians and economists is "Exportweltmeister" = "world champion at exporting goods". I kid you not.

The self centred behaviour of Western countries is a well used source of continuing resentment in most of the non-European world. Here in the UK, governments hand out what they call, Overseas Aid in the form of conditional cash. So essentially, what happens is, we take their resources, money and best talent then given them back tiny payments in the form of gifts, provided they do as we say, buy what we tell them to.

It's essentially post colonial colonialism.

From that perspective, it can be seen as being an outrage. In reality, the issues are more complicated.

Firstly, in most African and Asian countries, corruption is endemic. Corruption is like a cancer on any economy. As long as it remains rampant, no economy can survive. The USSR and now Russia, was/are, by a considerably margin, in natural resources, the wealthiest areas on the planet. Wealthier than the whole of Africa. Even here in the UK, small scale corruption exists in various areas. In the 80, I looked very closely at Lanarkshire for example. Corruption was everywhere and so was poverty. The two go hand in hand, in any part of the world.

Now for legal reasons, it is simply not possible for western businesses to be seen to be acting corruptly. Not least because their shareholders would be the first to loose out. So, western governments generally seek to enforce an over seeing role on these countries to make it easier for business to operate.

That's where overseas aid come in. A bribe to the local governments to do things our way.

The problems here are rather more complicated. The people fleeing the ME are apparently doing so to get away from the increasingly oppressive regimes who are inevitably filling the gaps as the US, aided by the UK, disposes of government after government.

Once we have taken the bulk of these people, what will be left will be an increasingly concentrated population fo very angry and resentful communities who have to stuck in their heads that strapping bombs to themselves is a good idea.

 

[Patrick_68000]

After the attacks in Paris, the Poland announces that it will refuse the migrant quotas imposed by the European Union and Germany

 

[huwthomas]

Jerusalem Post

Konrad Szymanski will take up his post on Monday in the government formed by the winners of last month's election, the conservative and eurosceptic Law and Justice (PiS) party.

"The attacks mean the necessity of an even deeper revision of the European policy towards the migrant crisis," he said at a Saturday briefing.

"We'll accept (refugees only) if we have security guarantees. This is a key condition, and today a question mark has been put next to it all around Europe," he added without elaborating on what he meant by security guarantees.

Sovereignty/security on a collision course with solidarity/integration?

 

[Surfinjo]

Jerusalem Post



Sovereignty/security on a collision course with solidarity/integration?

Those that don't meet the criteria will be turned back on the beach to swim to another place.

It's all so smart and well thought out. It leaves me shaking with awe at the genius of those who make these incredible decisions.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Those that don't meet the criteria will be turned back on the beach to swim to another place.

It's all so smart and well thought out. It leaves me shaking with awe at the genius of those who make these incredible decisions.

I tremble even more when terrorists come to kill innocent people in the streets of Paris

 

[Surfinjo]

I tremble even more when terrorists come to kill innocent people in the streets of Paris

If it would keep out even one terrorist I'd be standing at the beaches myself, waving away the cutest kids and the most desperate women.

The reality is it won't.

Not one.

 

[beelbeebub]

A double win for the terrorists. Not only do they get to do their carnage thing, but they also get to shaft the overwhelming majority of genuine refugees.
:
Here's a question.
:
Given there will continue to huge numbers of refugees (lets not get into why) and given that a vanishingly small number of people with ill intent will try to enter Europe via this route, what do we do?
:
We could try:
:
Fully open borders, take 'em all, but is this even feasible? The supply of people who want to move to Europe because it is either safer or just a nicer place to live is likely to be functionally infinite
:
Fully closed borders, no one gets in. But the humanitarian cost would be high, we would need to steel ourselves to seeing boatloads of refugees turned around or simply, plucked out of the water and put ashore back in Libya/Turkey.
:
Something in between, maybe vouching systems (you need a sponsor who is responsible for your conduct), a series of processing centres to fully process the refugees, limited movement for refugees (no schengen), more complete identification of refugees (full biometric scanning, DNA samples), polygraph testing for refugees ("are you a terrorist?").
:
What can we do?

 

[Surfinjo]

:
Given there will continue to huge numbers of refugees (lets not get into why)
:
What can we do?

I can't see any solution in sight until the causes are tackled.

But since we are at the point when to even mention the elephant in the room is likely to bring on predictable and contrived wrath, that too would seem to be almost impossible.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The European leaders are stupid (and criminals against their peoples). Merkel and Juncker at the top of the list. By accepting the mass immigrations, they let in the wolves into the sheepfold

 

[beelbeebub]

I can't see any solution in sight until the causes are tackled.

But since we are at the point when to even mention the elephant in the room is likely to bring on predictable and contrived wrath, that too would seem to be almost impossible.

Yes, obviously tackling the causes to remove the need for people to flee their homeland would be and is a priority.
:
But stopping any discussion of what to do about the refugee issues by saying "we must tackle the causes" is not productive.
:
With the best will in the world and co-operation from all political groups we cannot conceivably stem the flow in the near term. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to, but whilst we are trying that we still need to deal with the immediate problems of thousands of people arriving in southern/eastern Europe, often by dangerous sea crossing, requiring aid, dispersal and long term care, whilst a vanishingly small number of them may also be trying to infiltrate Europe to carry out attacks like Paris.

 

[huwthomas]

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to, but whilst we are trying that we still need to deal with the immediate problems of thousands of people arriving in southern/eastern Europe, often by dangerous sea crossing, requiring aid, dispersal and long term care, whilst a vanishingly small number of them may also be trying to infiltrate Europe to carry out attacks like Paris.

Eliminating "pull factors" would stop a lot of them from risking their lives in this way. Balance that with more resources to enable people to stay safely closer to home. It would be interesting to get an accounting of what's being spent within the EU at the moment, and what could have been provided locally for the same amount.

Such a scheme does not have any potential to provide a future labour force for demographically-challenged Europe, though, so there's that drawback.

The other question I have in response to "what can we do" is "what could they do"? Why must it be up to the hosts to solve the problem, should the guests not be willing to adapt, too? I'm aware that there are powerful theological reasons why many people feel unable to adapt, but is that something we are morally obliged to solve?

 

[beelbeebub]

Eliminating "pull factors" would stop a lot of them from risking their lives in this way. Balance that with more resources to enable people to stay safely closer to home. It would be interesting to get an accounting of what's being spent within the EU at the moment, and what could have been provided locally for the same amount.

Eliminating the "pull factors" would mean things like cutting benefits to migrants, making it harder to enter the EU or settle etc. These are certainly things that could be explored.
.
However, I suspect that in the near to medium term there will always be a significant "pull" towards the EU from the middle east, Africa etc for two simple reasons,
.
1) we enjoy a higher standard of living, even the most under privileged slum dweller in a paris suburb or a London sink estate has running water, electricity, sanitation access to basic healthcare, a modicum of security that must seem like the good life for a large portion of the world.
.
2) we are a more tolerant society. For all minorities (justifiably) complain of discrimination such as racism in the street, being held back in job opportunities, police discrimination (the crime of "Driving whilst being black") or being prevented from practising cultural customs (ranging from the wearing of head scraves through to arranged marriages, female circumcision and honour killings) we in the EU do not regularly slaughter minorities. Where as in some parts of the world simply being the wrong religion or tribe can get you and your family slaughtered on a regular basis. Europe (at least since the second world war) is a relative picnic in comparison.

Such a scheme does not have any potential to provide a future labour force for demographically-challenged Europe, though, so there's that drawback.

this is something the anti immigration movement misses. ironically, I think a significant part of the movement is made up of older people who also dislike high elderly care costs because there won't be enough labour to wipe their behinds in the future.

The other question I have in response to "what can we do" is "what could they do"? Why must it be up to the hosts to solve the problem, should the guests not be willing to adapt, too? I'm aware that there are powerful theological reasons why many people feel unable to adapt, but is that something we are morally obliged to solve?

Very true, I think it is unacceptable that someone arrives in a foreign country seeking refuge, then begins to criticise the culture of that host country. Does Julian Assange criticise Ecuadorian human rights? Does Edward Snowdon call for the dismantling of the Russian surveillance apparatus?
.
I wonder if some sort of "facility" for housing the refugees securely in basic but humane conditions (basic bedroom & bathroom blocks) communal cafeteria (free), doctor facilities, simple educational facilities etc whilst their identity is being established and their status determined. I know the Australians have tried this sort of thing, with poor results, but we need some way of "buffering" the numbers whilst they are being processed.
.
In addition, might we not provide a European wide "refugee visa", this would give the holders the right to be refugees in a named European country with defined benefits (paid for centrally). They would not have the right to free movement. if they are allocated to Poland, then they stay in Poland. Only once they achieve full EU citizenship can they move freely.
.
Finally, all refugees would be fully biometrically scanned (finger prints, iris, gait, whatever else we can think of) and possibly even DNA taken.The biometrics would be to positively identify persons who are attempting to enter after previously being refused under a different name. The DNA would be useful in helping verify their back story (are they all members of the same family, why is there a sibling indicated in the database when he says he has no brothers, why is that person's name and back story different? etc) and also to provide a final backstop for ID, especially in cases where there may be difficulty with the other methods (e.g. a suicide bomber). Yes a long term DNA database is an infringement of civil liberties but if you truly are fleeing for your lives it should be a non-issue.

 

[Surfinjo]

:
With the best will in the world and co-operation from all political groups we cannot conceivably stem the flow in the near term. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to, but whilst we are trying that we still need to deal with the immediate problems of thousands of people arriving in southern/eastern Europe, often by dangerous sea crossing, requiring aid, dispersal and long term care, whilst a vanishingly small number of them may also be trying to infiltrate Europe to carry out attacks like Paris.

The causes date back a couple of hundred years of culturally motivated interference. They aren't going to be sorted in the short or even medium term. Stir up an ants nest, expect ants.

The influx of refugees will continue because the means of getting here has been opened. Sending thousands of people into the middle of the Mediterranean is kinda difficult to beat.

Unless we seriously intend to watch them drown, it will continue. I hate to say it, but when it was mostly just dark skinned Africans, hardly anyone noticed. Now it's pale skinned, pretty people with cute children.

Stopping these people from embarking in the first place would mean an occupation of every inch of the coast line.

I'm reluctant to suggest that Europe may have lost this one. Europe has been indomitable since pre-history. Indeed the only time Europe came anywhere near being invaded were the Muslim Caliphate conquests of 8th century. And those happened while Europeans were busy killing each other. But this looks pretty bad. And while we aren't exactly fighting each other, we are all desperately trying to out do each other in crass stupidity.

(Addition. Though it may not seem so, I'm actually agreeing with you.

 

[huwthomas]

2) we are a more tolerant society. For all minorities (justifiably) complain of discrimination such as racism in the street, being held back in job opportunities, police discrimination (the crime of "Driving whilst being black") or being prevented from practising cultural customs (ranging from the wearing of head scraves through to arranged marriages, female circumcision and honour killings) we in the EU do not regularly slaughter minorities. Where as in some parts of the world simply being the wrong religion or tribe can get you and your family slaughtered on a regular basis. Europe (at least since the second world war) is a relative picnic in comparison.

Defending tolerance is the heart of the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The paradox of tolerance.

e.g. blasphemy laws may be back on the agenda in the UK...

 

[beelbeebub]

Defending tolerance is the heart of the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The paradox of tolerance.

e.g. blasphemy laws may be back on the agenda in the UK...

That's the issue, interestingly the extremely anti muslim dutch politician Pym Fortuyn was, in part, driven by the fact he was openly gay. He was worried that influx of muslim immigrants and the Dutch tradition of extreme tolerance that allowed some muslims to openly call for the persecution of homosexuals, would ultimately lead to intolerance against homosexuals. Pre-emptive discrimination if you like.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The prosecutor of the French Republic announced the concordance between the papillary imprints of one of the kamikazes of the Stade de France and those measured during an inspection in Greece among the migrants, in October. ---- The best solution is to let the refugees in the neighboring countries of Syria. The world has the financial resources to allow it.

 

[Patrick_68000]

In the USA, 7 Republican states refuse to welcome the Syrian refugees. Alabama, Michigan, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana and the Mississippi. For security reasons

 

[huwthomas]

That's the issue, interestingly the extremely anti muslim dutch politician Pym Fortuyn was, in part, driven by the fact he was openly gay. He was worried that influx of muslim immigrants and the Dutch tradition of extreme tolerance that allowed some muslims to openly call for the persecution of homosexuals, would ultimately lead to intolerance against homosexuals. Pre-emptive discrimination if you like.

Indeed. RIP Pim Fortuyn.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

In the USA, 7 Republican states refuse to welcome the Syrian refugees. Alabama, Michigan, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana and the Mississippi. For security reasons

Very interesting that they have that power ... an area where the US states have more sovereignty than EU ones.

 

[beelbeebub]

Very interesting that they have that power ... an area where the US states have more sovereignty than EU ones.

I believe the EU states have exactly that power [to not accept refugees], that is why negotiations are ongoing as to who will take how many. Clearly there has to be some mechanism for dispersing refugees otherwise the states closest to the refugee sources (Italy, Greece etc) will get overwhelmed.
:
Currently negotiations are ongoing over numbers (and no doubt costs) to enable the "induction" process for refugees to be streamlined. No state has to take refugees, although there may be political pressure from others to do so.